Soviet trials of Bf 109G-2, G-4

Recommended Posts

I have recently uploaded some Soviet trial documents to my site. This should be helpful as it contains level speed, climb and turn rate figures for the 109G series, also in good agreement with German sources.

Research and Experimental Institute of the Red Army Air Force - Messerschmitt Me 109 G-2.1944(Soviet description focusing on the Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2 fighter. Measured figures for level speed, climb rate at various altitudes, turn time at 1000 m in left and right handed turns, altitude gained in 'combat turn', range and generic figures are also given for Bf 109B, E, F-2, G-2 ('three-pointer'), G-2 with Gondola-R????sts???�tz ('five-pointer') and G-4.. In Russian.

Midway through the war, new German fighters remained in the focus of the Soviet aviation command element. Moreover, there was the necessity to inform Stalin about the improved Messerschmitts. On 23 October 1942, Red Army Air Forces Chief Engineer A. K. Repin reported this to the Leader: "Recently, modified Bf 109F-4 and Bf 109G-2 fighters have appeared at the front. Based on information from line units, they have greater level and vertical speeds. According to the Red Army Main Intelligence Directorate, these aircraft can reach a speed of 625-650 km/h at an altitude of 6700 meters. I would kindly ask you to task the People's Commissariat of the Aviation Industry to do the following: by spring 1943, design and build a single-engine fighter with a speed on the order of 680-700 km/h at altitudes of 6000-7000 meters, maximum speed at ground level of 550-560 km/h, technical flight weight not exceeding 3300 kilograms, and with metal wings". However, a captured Bf 109 had to be tested in order to know both the strong and weak points of the new fighter. Such was the task set before the institute leadership in late autumn 1942. Thus, as soon as the news about the I/JG3 Group Messerschmitt captured near Stalingrad was received, Captain A. G. Proshakov flew there at once. On 25 December, after simple repairs, he managed to fly the trophy to the institute repair shops. In early January 1943, Engineer-Captain A. S. Rozanov began examining Bf 109G-2 No. 13903. The Institute's chief assigned the task to compare the German machine with the best Soviet experimental and series-produced fighters, above all, the Yak-1 Yak-7b, La-5, Yak-9, as well as the Yak-1 M-106 and N. N. Polikarpov's I-185. The inspection showed that the new Messerschmitt differed from previoush examined Bf 109F-2 No. 9209 in its more powerful DB 605A engine, additional underwing 20mm MG 151 cannon, armor-glass windshield, and 18mm Duralumin plate behind the fuel tank. Test flights by seasoned test pilots like Colonel P. M. Stefanovskiy, Captain A. G. Proshakov, and Captain A. G. Kubyshkin demonstrated that it was hard for Soviet series-produced fighters to equal the Bf 109G Gustav in combat. The power plant on the German aircraft was more convenient to control, bu the view from the cockpit, especially to the rear, turned out to be much worse than that of, let's say, the Yak-9. Engineer-Lieutenant Colonel A. N. Frolov, Chiei of the Fighter Department, noted how painstakingly German designers anc engineers sealed the construction elements. Slots on control surfaces were reduced to a minimum, motor cowlings fitted tightly against the fuselage, ant: the fuselage had rubber gaskets. Only the experimental I-185 fighter could compete with the Bf 109G-2 in rate of climb and only the MiG-3 could reach a service ceiling of 11,250 meters (the best series-produced examples could climb to 11,500 m). The Messerschmitt salvo weight was 4.67 kilograms per second.32 Underwing cannon considerabh reduced the horizontal maneuverability of the aircraft, which we called the "five-pointer". The German designation was Bf 109G-2/R6. It took the German fighter 22.6 seconds to complete a bank at an altitude of 1000 meters (similar to the series-produced La-5) and most Soviet fighters could perform a run-in from the rear during the second or third bank. Aerial combat between the Bf 109G-2/R6 and La-5 was simulated at the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute. The Lavochkin had improved visibility and its weight was reduced by 160 kilograms. At low altitudes, it was flying with the M-82 engine in afterburner. Lieutenant Colonel N. I. Shaurov, who was evaluating the aircraft from the tactical point of view, came to the conclusion that the upgraded Soviet airplane could successfully counter the Messerschmitt at low and medium altitudes. He thought that its poor visibility to the rear and the danger of involuntary entry into a spin when the stick was overbalanced during a bank gave the La-5 an equal chance, even in vertical aerial combat. In a prolonged dive, the Bf 109G-2 was somewhat faster, but a Lavochkin recovering from a dive could overtake the German owing to a steeper trajectory. Institute Chief General P. A. Losyukov in his report on testing the "five-pointer" Bf 109G-2 noted that the test results had to be disseminated to Red Army Air Forces line units. "In order to combat the new Messerschmitt successfully, there is an urgent necessity to use the TsAGI recommendations to improve the aerodynamics of domestic series-produced fighters and to accelerate production of Yak-1 and Yak-9 airplanes with the M-106 engine and the La-5 powered by the M-82 NV (with direct injection)," the general noted. Losyukov also drew the attention of the People's Commissariat of the Aviation Industry leadership to the necessity to eliminate defects degrading the combat qualities of our fighters. The test results had an impact on development of the domestic aircraft industry. The military wrote to People's Commissar Shakhurin, asking him: 1. In order to increase horizontal and vertical speeds of domestic fighters, oblige chief designers comrades Shvetsov, Klimov, and Mikulin to install hydraulically driven superchargers on M-71, M-82, M-106, M-107, AM-39, and AM-42 engines. Recommend use of an automatic hydraulic clutch control unit similar to the one on theDB605A/l. 2. "Free" the pilot from the requirement to constantly monitor the power plant temperature during aerial combat and oblige chief designers comrades Yakovlev and Lavochkin to design and install automatic devices regulating the position of radiator shutters and cowl flaps to reduce drag by using a more rational way to open the shutters regulating the temperature.

Soviet pilot in the cockpit of Bf 109G-2/R-6 No. 13903, January 1943. Captured near Stalingrad and tested in the Soviet Union using the designation "Five-Pointer", this fighter seriously worried the Red Army Air Forces leadership due to its excellent flight capabilities

+1. Also the rear headrest, although gave good protection for the pilots head (see Russian diagram) also blocked the rear view considerably. Hence the introduction of the transparent "Galland Panzer" type headrest in the end of 1942 on the G-series.

Apart from that, practically all Soviet fighter pilots I've read were so impressed with the 109G-2 that they flat out considered it to be the best fighter out there. Soviet figures show that it retained the manouverability of the F-2 but was a whole lot faster and climbed better.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Then Prien would be incorrect in this case. Even his own book has pictures of 109G(-2) with Galland Panzer in the spring of 1943, and furthermore the RLM's modification lists clearly show the Galland panzer to be introduced to all 109G from late 1942. Naturally this did not happen overnight but it was there and available since the end of 1942.

Anyway, its besides the point. During the Stalingrad Battle, few 109G would have the Galland Panzer anyway.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As always, despite the relative strengths and weaknesses between planes, and individuals' subjective impressions and recollections based on differing experiences, ultimately it comes down to tactics, maintenance levels, skill and the overall strategic situation, doesn't it?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Then Prien would be incorrect in this case. Even his own book has pictures of 109G(-2) with Galland Panzer in the spring of 1943, and furthermore the RLM's modification lists clearly show the Galland panzer to be introduced to all 109G from late 1942. Naturally this did not happen overnight but it was there and available since the end of 1942.

Anyway, its besides the point. During the Stalingrad Battle, few 109G would have the Galland Panzer anyway.

Can you please drop me a source for that via PM?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Then Prien would be incorrect in this case. Even his own book has pictures of 109G(-2) with Galland Panzer in the spring of 1943, and furthermore the RLM's modification lists clearly show the Galland panzer to be introduced to all 109G from late 1942. Naturally this did not happen overnight but it was there and available since the end of 1942.

Anyway, its besides the point. During the Stalingrad Battle, few 109G would have the Galland Panzer anyway.

Can you provide some pictures, especially of G-2 and G-4s on the eastern front, featuring the Galland Panzer? I can only find some in use with IV./JG51 in December 1943, which goes along with this:

According to Prien and Rodeike, the Galland Panzer was not introduced to the G-6 til the summer of 1943. It "improved the pilot's view to the rear somewhat".

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

According to Prien and Rodeike, the Galland Panzer was not introduced to the G-6 til the summer of 1943. It "improved the pilot's view to the rear somewhat".

In Prien and Rodeike there is only one picture of a G-2 of 3./JG53, dated Jan 1943 which possibly has the Galland Panzer armour (p. 76), and there is a G-4/Trop of 8./JG53, Sicily February 1943 (p. 88)- there may be a couple of others, otherwise all still have the solid head armour.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As always, despite the relative strengths and weaknesses between planes, and individuals' subjective impressions and recollections based on differing experiences, ultimately it comes down to tactics, maintenance levels, skill and the overall strategic situation, doesn't it?

It does, being tactic probably the only thing that can be influenced by the individual plane's performance (you change tactic according to the plane's capabilities).

Edited February 19, 2013 by 6S.Manu

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Could the Galland armour be used with pressurized cockpits of the odd numbered G models, and if so, was it?

No, at least I am not aware of such examples. The odd number G models by default had a different head plate, which sealed the rear of cockpit. It featured tiny rectangular panels at top corners, and similarly the rest of canopy was sealed, and a different (sealed, multi-layer plexiglass) canopy was used. Using the Galland panzer would compromise pressurarizatThese variants were pressurized and would feature (not always) GM 1 boost which gave some terrific performance boost at altitude. These were dedicated high altitude interceptors, and relatively few were built (a couple of hundred) mainly used on the Western front (special high altitude Squadrons were used and were attached to Fw 190 equipped JGs).

Later G-5/6 models were produced in far greater numbers but in their case it seems that they were quickly used as a basis for MW boost conversions (since they already had the tank and piping in place).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hey Kurf????rst, what happened to your site? It seems that most of the flight reports and data has become unavailable! Any chance that you might get all of it working again?

Most of them work for me... I just checked. Can you PM me the ones that do not? I am aware of a couple of tests not showing up, the French trials for example refuse to follow the link properly for some reason.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

2. "Free" the pilot from the requirement to constantly monitor the power plant temperature during aerial combat and oblige chief designers comrades Yakovlev and Lavochkin to design and install automatic devices regulating the position of radiator shutters and cowl flaps to reduce drag by using a more rational way to open the shutters regulating the temperature.

Interesting Kurfurst,

Did they achieve this objective eventually? There seems to have been a lot of cockpit work in the Russian fighters...Apparently they were impressed by the automatic features of the German design.

Since they were testing the heavier and (less aerodynamic?) 5 pointer G2, is it ok to assume that normal G2 was superior to its opposition at the time?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

i think, this original russian document (on russian, of course) could be very good addition for collections of history buffs, like and recent original russian report about bf 109 g-2 № 14 513 on 3 page...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thanks MK.Bivalov, I think the F trial papers are new - its a pity that the wartime Soviet trials are so hard to understand for us because of the language/alphabet barrier... It would be great if somehow the contents and findings of the paper could be more easily understood. I understand the Soviet F-2 trials demonstrated some fault in the DB 601 supercharger, so the trial results had to be estimated - is this correct?

A Nemesis, it may help - translation of the Finnish trials (credits to Hkuusela) and some background of the MT 215 plane are at my website:

etc, ie glass not myth or mistake, but hard to say when this started to practice, because USSR captured more 109s, than now have full reports about only several planes...

Thanks MK.Bivalov, I think the F trial papers are new -...

...I understand the Soviet F-2 trials demonstrated some fault in the DB 601 supercharger, so the trial results had to be estimated - is this correct?

yes, it's a famous test of f-2 W.Nr.9209 from 6./JG52, with broken supercharger and 2780 kg, if i'm not mistaken, just now here original scans of full document with several details, like description of 601e and changes in planes (e, f-2, f-4Z)... btw, weight could be with test-equipment, like in weight of g-2/r6 with 3235 kg, where most likely need minus 29 kg... and no front pazner glass...

ie information mainly just for interest and no so much really news, for example, many serial numbers on page 29-30... and you knowed, i think, even was wrongly recommendations and conclusions which was based on this defect of engine, but looks like speed etc before 3000 meters are correct, 510 kph in report vs. 515 in original manual...

and especially interesting personally for me, as player, it's time of turn at 1000 m, can you confirm or not confirm results, as 109-expert? i just read, in old translation of english book, what F-2 had around 18 sec at ... meters and looks like with combat power...

...It would be great if somehow the contents and findings of the paper could be more easily understood.

it's hard by reason below, plus personally i can't do this correctly and on good english, looks like only several peoples here really will and understand what i'm try to write, so, i cant really help you...

but, can say what i saw, and i did this before about "information from table in cockpit" with "2800 as WEP" on page 18 (later i checked your site and understood what is means, short 2800 revs for little more speed, from manual of f-1/2, right?)... plus mention what " now no 1 min. limit for WEP of 601N", it's on page 16 (like you write about this too)... most likely, it's exactly about 601N and it's all what i found, at least for self, in total just description of design, MANY guesses, errors etc, although, i repeat what have serial numbers, drawings and sheme...

well, really sorry...

its a pity that the wartime Soviet trials are so hard to understand for us because of the language/alphabet barrier...

i very understand you, and moreover even with russian language it's not easy because what i write above, really need to be careful... although, if researcher have lot of experience, he easy can understand where errors...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sorry I was specifically asking kurfürst since he was the one to claim that the galland panzer was used a lot sooner than is documented on photos so I remain unconvinced.

Hi ImPeRaToR!

Here's the modification list of Bf 109G ongoing modifications, showing No. 285 Mod. Galland Panzer introduction as of 18 November 1942; secondly, a picture of a Bf 109G-2 of JG 53 (MTO) via Prien - Rodeike Bf 109F-K volume, showing that by that time the modifications were already being carried out in the field, also for earlier aircraft like G-2.

So the Galland Panzer was not limited to the G-6 and later, and secondly, it was introduced earlier than generally understood, ie. at the end of 1942 instead of the second half of 1943.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thanks, very interesting. Do you happen to have any eastern front pictures? Also, the date on the Änderungsanweisungen is 1.7.43, why would Messerschmitt document this only this late?

Ave Imperator!

No, I do not have any eastern front pics (maybe there are, maybe there isn't, but I am not feeling like wading through hundreds of 109G photos!). The document posted (kindly provided AFAIK by Mr. Manninen) exhaustively lists all various modifications of the 109 airframe, down to the most minor ones. If I understand the next one would be some kind of improvement to the main spar. So the document would list all modifications up the date of the whole document. Obviously it would be updated periodically, so this one contains modifications up to July 1943.

Maybe the "F-4/G"mentioned in the previous post... with a c3 triangle and the 100 oktane stencil on the fuel hatch of a DB 601N?? By the way, isn't the pilot Galland himself?

Yes that was Galland's own customized 109F, probably an F-2 given the fuel triangle, with the transparent armoured glass, "invented" IIRC by his mechanic in 1941. Hence the name Galland Panzer. The other important customization, the onboard cigar lighter however, did not see widespread use.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That's what the table says, they are modification instructions ("Änderungsanweisungen") for the - probably - running production published by Mtt. Inside the table you have "RLM Genehmigungsdatum" which means date of acceptance by the RLM so it very much looks like an officially authorised change.

Obviously it would be updated periodically, so this one contains modifications up to July 1943.

I suppose so. I am still not convinced that the "Gallandpanzer" was used on the eastern front as early as November 42 but I suppose that's not really relevant - I assume if a pilot really really wanted to have one there were ways to have one delivered to Russia, or maybe even build one from scratch like Gallands mechanic did.

Edited December 31, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That's what the table says, they are modification instructions ("Änderungsanweisungen") for the - probably - running production published by Mtt. Inside the table you have "RLM Genehmigungsdatum" which means date of acceptance by the RLM so it very much looks like an officially authorised change.

I suppose so. I am still not convinced that the "Gallandpanzer" was used on the eastern front as early as November 42 but I suppose that's not really relevant - I assume if a pilot really really wanted to have one there were ways to have one delivered to Russia, or maybe even build one from scratch like Gallands mechanic did.

A photograph of a G-2 with modified head armour incorporating armoured glass shows that it was possible for units to modify their aircraft to suit local requirements.

Is there any further evidence that early model G's were officially fitted with Gallandpanzer before about mid-1943?

In another interesting conversion several 109Fs of II./JG5 were fitted with the early style E canopy in mid 1942 at the behest of Horst Carganico

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

yeah, could be canopy for G, but most likely what this is canopy for f-4z or something like this, but this is just my simple thought and you right... but i sure, cowling with 1 cooling vent it's "late type" of cowling for F, i read something like this on russian modelling forum, but this is again just though...

and all this just interesting, when i thinking about game...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

interesting finding here - "Other data: stall speed clean 170 km/h (could not be clearly defined). The nose sunk and the plane banked calmly to the right wing. At landing configuration the stall speed was 145 km/h. With full power the plane could be held hanging from the prop at 60° nose-up attitude ASI showing 130-140 km/h. Up to 350 km/h with a hard pull in the bank plane could be stalled (!) At 1000m altitude 180° turn required 10 s (G-2), starting speed 450 km/h, final speed 380 km/h. Full circle 18 s with final speed 330 km/h. Full 360° bank required 22 s with 360 km/h, bank angle 70° acceleration 3 g." - ie all soviet tests, including captured 109s, could be for little less weight...

although, of course, it's only just thought...

btw, can someone tell me CORRECT weight of bf 109 g-6 with 1x20+2x13 ie clean day fighter? although i can calculate this, but correct numbers be better, well i have 3100 kg and around 3150 kg - that more correctly? i think what could be 3100, but...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

btw, can someone tell me CORRECT weight of bf 109 g-6 with 1x20+2x13 ie clean day fighter? although i can calculate this, but correct numbers be better, well i have 3100 kg and around 3150 kg - that more correctly? i think what could be 3100, but...

I recall 3096 kg... or abouts. This is from loading plan, which is really accurate, as its not only a statistic list, as usual datasheets, but list every single item, with centre of gravity effects in centimer and one tenth of gramm accuracy...

Finding the G-6s weight was a pain in the .... , to confuse matters there is a later 1944 GLC - E datasheet floating around, that gives 3196 kg, which must be either a typo or some new equipment ie. radio.. the loading charts do give accurate figures, but here again there are lot of variations, ie. /trop variants were heavier by about 50 kg, license variants also have different weights iirc etc.

The January 1944 Mtt complilation report for example notes +40 kg weight for the MG 131 with Muni compared to G-1, but there were some other differences - radio, new undercarriage tires etc.